So a friend's friend got shot and killed by the cops

[jonks]

Originally posted by: QueBert

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: QueBert
10 shots is not acceptable at all, glad a couple of power hungry maniacs got the chance to unload led into another person, maybe they'll chill for awhile. Police Officers are trained at using a fire arm. I am not trained in the use of one, and I know I could stop one person from that distance with far less than 10 shots. Excessive and sad, While I don't agree they should have tried to shoot him in the leg, 10 shots is too many, they could have shot him in the chest, he might have lived and there's no danger for the cops to be injured. Instead they decided it would be better to make sure a small Asian dude with a Tire Iron was dead, because what a threat he must have been.

On the bright side, he could have been a black man and gotten killed just for BOWB (being outside while black)

I always love this line of thinking.

So, how many shots is acceptable then? 3? 6? 29? 1? What's the magic number to protect your life and the life of others?

Cops are not civilians who go to the shooting range once a year, they are trained to know how to handle a gun properly. If the said Korean man had a gun it would be reasonable to shoot him until he's dead because a gun is a serious threat. Same man with a Tire Iron it would be reasonable to say once he's shot once the tire iron is no longer a threat. I could with fair ease take the man down in 2-3 shots, he might still die but it wouldn't take me almost a dozen bullets to stop a 90 lb, 5'5 Korean man. They weren't protecting anyones lives really, I mean 2 cops could have gotten the Tire Iron away from a small Asian dude. If they couldn't they shouldn't be Officers in the first place.

A gun is a quick and easy solution, but it wasn't the right one here. I suspect at worst they'll get a paid vacation while it's investigated. I'm not saying the Korean dude was in the right, but 10 shots? no fucking way

I think acceptable is anything that's not excessive, when the police in NYC shot that man 41 times and one of the Officers actually reloaded to keep shooting that was not acceptable, but hay that's just me *shrug*

I don't know why people felt the need to make 5 parody threads, when the real thing is doing just fine.

 

[XxPrOdiGyxX]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt


That's a neat list of firearms, but how often do you shoot?

And yes, in hindsight there are possibly ways that it could have been resolved without a loss of life. But we have a lot more time to think things through than the two officers did. I cannot fault them for their reaction.

ZV

Not at all anymore. That was when I was going into the Army before I hurt my leg and knees. But I shot around with my other military friends at the shoot range down in blacksburg several times. I know i'm definitely not the best marksman. I did get "expert" on my official shooting tests but that was just pop-up targets so I know that doesn't simulate the real thing. Eitherway, I'm through with arguing on this thread because in the end the guy who got shot was the bigger idiot and he brought it on himself.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: QueBert
10 shots is not acceptable at all, glad a couple of power hungry maniacs got the chance to unload led into another person, maybe they'll chill for awhile. Police Officers are trained at using a fire arm. I am not trained in the use of one, and I know I could stop one person from that distance with far less than 10 shots. Excessive and sad, While I don't agree they should have tried to shoot him in the leg, 10 shots is too many, they could have shot him in the chest, he might have lived and there's no danger for the cops to be injured. Instead they decided it would be better to make sure a small Asian dude with a Tire Iron was dead, because what a threat he must have been.

On the bright side, he could have been a black man and gotten killed just for BOWB (being outside while black)

The bolded part is obvious if you're advocating such idiocy as the idea that it only takes one shot or that they should have aimed for his leg.

ZV

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: QueBert
10 shots is not acceptable at all, glad a couple of power hungry maniacs got the chance to unload led into another person, maybe they'll chill for awhile. Police Officers are trained at using a fire arm. I am not trained in the use of one, and I know I could stop one person from that distance with far less than 10 shots. Excessive and sad, While I don't agree they should have tried to shoot him in the leg, 10 shots is too many, they could have shot him in the chest, he might have lived and there's no danger for the cops to be injured. Instead they decided it would be better to make sure a small Asian dude with a Tire Iron was dead, because what a threat he must have been.

On the bright side, he could have been a black man and gotten killed just for BOWB (being outside while black)

The bolded part is obvious if you're advocating such idiocy as the idea that it only takes one shot or that they should have aimed for his leg.

ZV

Agreed,

Sean Taylor died because the intruders shot him in the leg and severed his femoral artery. You cut that artery and it's pretty much game over.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: QueBert
Cops are not civilians who go to the shooting range once a year, they are trained to know how to handle a gun properly.

That's right. Officers only go to the range twice a year. That's it. Police officers only have to qualify with their weapons once every six months. Most do not practice outside of qualifying.

Most civilians with concealed carry permits train at the range 5-6 times each month.

Originally posted by: QueBert
If the said Korean man had a gun it would be reasonable to shoot him until he's dead because a gun is a serious threat. Same man with a Tire Iron it would be reasonable to say once he's shot once the tire iron is no longer a threat. I could with fair ease take the man down in 2-3 shots, he might still die but it wouldn't take me almost a dozen bullets to stop a 90 lb, 5'5 Korean man.

No, the man remains a threat until he's down. There are numerous documented incidents where people have been shot multiple times and yet remain a threat to those around them. I also seriously doubt that, since, by your own admission, you have not even fired a gun, you could even hit the man in 2-3 shots, let alone "take him down".

Originally posted by: QueBert
They weren't protecting anyones lives really, I mean 2 cops could have gotten the Tire Iron away from a small Asian dude. If they couldn't they shouldn't be Officers in the first place.

A gun is a quick and easy solution, but it wasn't the right one here. I suspect at worst they'll get a paid vacation while it's investigated. I'm not saying the Korean dude was in the right, but 10 shots? no fucking way

I think acceptable is anything that's not excessive, when the police in NYC shot that man 41 times and one of the Officers actually reloaded to keep shooting that was not acceptable, but hay that's just me *shrug*

You keep shooting until the attacker stops attacking. That's it. If it takes 41 rounds, then that's what you do.

ZV

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

I think acceptable is anything that's not excessive, when the police in NYC shot that man 41 times and one of the Officers actually reloaded to keep shooting that was not acceptable, but hay that's just me *shrug*

You keep shooting until the attacker stops attacking. That's it. If it takes 41 rounds, then that's what you do.

ZV

I don't think it's worth bringing that particular case into the discussion. Though I don't defend what the cops did, I think there were some extenuating circumstances which have no relevance to the present discussion.

 

[jpeyton]

Another example of cops thinking they are judge, jury, and executioner.

Trigger happy idiots.

 

[QueBert]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: QueBert
10 shots is not acceptable at all, glad a couple of power hungry maniacs got the chance to unload led into another person, maybe they'll chill for awhile. Police Officers are trained at using a fire arm. I am not trained in the use of one, and I know I could stop one person from that distance with far less than 10 shots. Excessive and sad, While I don't agree they should have tried to shoot him in the leg, 10 shots is too many, they could have shot him in the chest, he might have lived and there's no danger for the cops to be injured. Instead they decided it would be better to make sure a small Asian dude with a Tire Iron was dead, because what a threat he must have been.

On the bright side, he could have been a black man and gotten killed just for BOWB (being outside while black)

The bolded part is obvious if you're advocating such idiocy as the idea that it only takes one shot or that they should have aimed for his leg.

ZV

I said clearly DO NOT aim for the leg, if 2 people who are trained in the use of a fire arm cannot stop a person from 10 feet away with less than 10 bullets. they shouldn't be police men. I shoot for fun and I promise I could have done it in 2-3 shots, the dude wasn't far away, he wasn't running around, it would have been EASY for trained professionals defuse the situation with the perp living, instead they made a choice to be psychos and shoot 10 times. do you believe 10 shots is reasonable for a person with a tire iron? If you do I'm glad you're not a police officer.

and to Zenmervolt I never said I've never fired a gun, I said I was never trained how to shoot. I shoot often and I would have to believe, or at least hope the average cop is a better with a pistol than I am. If not maybe I should sign up and become a cop. And in reference to your "if it takes 41 shots to stop the attacker" umm the dude they shot 41 times wasn't even advancing, he was a harmless, unarmed dude who just happened to be black and racist cops wanted an excuse to shoot somebody of color.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: QueBert

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: QueBert
10 shots is not acceptable at all, glad a couple of power hungry maniacs got the chance to unload led into another person, maybe they'll chill for awhile. Police Officers are trained at using a fire arm. I am not trained in the use of one, and I know I could stop one person from that distance with far less than 10 shots. Excessive and sad, While I don't agree they should have tried to shoot him in the leg, 10 shots is too many, they could have shot him in the chest, he might have lived and there's no danger for the cops to be injured. Instead they decided it would be better to make sure a small Asian dude with a Tire Iron was dead, because what a threat he must have been.

On the bright side, he could have been a black man and gotten killed just for BOWB (being outside while black)

The bolded part is obvious if you're advocating such idiocy as the idea that it only takes one shot or that they should have aimed for his leg.

ZV

I said clearly DO NOT aim for the leg, if 2 people who are trained in the use of a fire arm cannot stop a person from 10 feet away with less than 10 bullets. they shouldn't be police men. I shoot for fun and I promise I could have done it in 2-3 shots, the dude wasn't far away, he wasn't running around, it would have been EASY for trained professionals defuse the situation with the perp living, instead they made a choice to be psychos and shoot 10 times. do you believe 10 shots is reasonable for a person with a tire iron? If you do I'm glad you're not a police officer.

As long as they shoot to kill, there won't be any lawsuits or different perspectives of the story. The murdered can't speak out against their killers.

That's my 2 cents on why they kept firing until his organs were turned into Swiss cheese.

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: mugs
Having a weapon (a melee weapon no less) does not justify deadly force.

Threatening to use a lethal weapon isn't justification for deadly force?

Sure it's a not a gun, but it's a lethal weapon just the same.

Oddly enough this was the first hit for "tire iron as deadly weapon".
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/..._app/541471MAJ&invol=4

If he did lunge toward the police with the tire iron raised (like they say he did), then I believe deadly force was justified. If he was walking around with the tire iron lowered (I can't even see a tire iron in the video, I assume it was in his left hand?), I don't believe that justifies deadly force.

Like I said, it's unfortunate that the camera didn't capture what actually happened.

I never said a tire iron isn't a deadly weapon.

Then your statement is about it being a melee weapon is completely irrelevant.

Simply having ANY weapon isn't justification for deadly force. It could be a AK-47, a rocket launcher or a tire iron. Threat+deadly weapon=justified deadly force.

I wonder what the dash cameras show...

 

[crystal]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: QueBert
Cops are not civilians who go to the shooting range once a year, they are trained to know how to handle a gun properly.

That's right. Officers only go to the range twice a year. That's it. Police officers only have to qualify with their weapons once every six months. Most do not practice outside of qualifying.

Most civilians with concealed carry permits train at the range 5-6 times each month.

Originally posted by: QueBert
If the said Korean man had a gun it would be reasonable to shoot him until he's dead because a gun is a serious threat. Same man with a Tire Iron it would be reasonable to say once he's shot once the tire iron is no longer a threat. I could with fair ease take the man down in 2-3 shots, he might still die but it wouldn't take me almost a dozen bullets to stop a 90 lb, 5'5 Korean man.

No, the man remains a threat until he's down. There are numerous documented incidents where people have been shot multiple times and yet remain a threat to those around them. I also seriously doubt that, since, by your own admission, you have not even fired a gun, you could even hit the man in 2-3 shots, let alone "take him down".

Originally posted by: QueBert
They weren't protecting anyones lives really, I mean 2 cops could have gotten the Tire Iron away from a small Asian dude. If they couldn't they shouldn't be Officers in the first place.

A gun is a quick and easy solution, but it wasn't the right one here. I suspect at worst they'll get a paid vacation while it's investigated. I'm not saying the Korean dude was in the right, but 10 shots? no fucking way

I think acceptable is anything that's not excessive, when the police in NYC shot that man 41 times and one of the Officers actually reloaded to keep shooting that was not acceptable, but hay that's just me *shrug*

You keep shooting until the attacker stops attacking. That's it. If it takes 41 rounds, then that's what you do.

ZV

Stop attacking or the body stops jerking?

Reading these kind of stories - sometime I wonder if there are some unspoken rules, a one sided story.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: mugs
Having a weapon (a melee weapon no less) does not justify deadly force.

Threatening to use a lethal weapon isn't justification for deadly force?

Sure it's a not a gun, but it's a lethal weapon just the same.

Oddly enough this was the first hit for "tire iron as deadly weapon".
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/..._app/541471MAJ&invol=4

If he did lunge toward the police with the tire iron raised (like they say he did), then I believe deadly force was justified. If he was walking around with the tire iron lowered (I can't even see a tire iron in the video, I assume it was in his left hand?), I don't believe that justifies deadly force.

Like I said, it's unfortunate that the camera didn't capture what actually happened.

I never said a tire iron isn't a deadly weapon.

Then your statement is about it being a melee weapon is completely irrelevant.

Simply having ANY weapon isn't justification for deadly force. It could be a AK-47, a rocket launcher or a tire iron. Threat+deadly weapon=justified deadly force.

I wonder what the dash cameras show...

It is relevant in that the guy had to be close to the officers to effectively use it as a deadly weapon. Standing 10 feet away from the police and raising an AK-47 toward them justifies deadly force. Standing 10 feet away from the police and raising a tire iron does not. Lunging toward the police with the tire iron does. A firearm that is pointed toward the ground can become a firearm that is pointed at the police much more quickly than a tire iron at the guy's waist can become a tire iron on a collision course for a police officer's head. That is relevant.

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

As long as they shoot to kill, there won't be any lawsuits or different perspectives of the story. The murdered can't speak out against their killers.

That's my 2 cents on why they kept firing until his organs were turned into Swiss cheese.

I am not saying you are not correct here. If this is the reason 10 shots were fired to stop this kid then something is clearly wrong with the legal system itself. If a cop has to kill to avoid a lawsuit then we as a society have failed, not the police.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: QueBert
do you believe 10 shots is reasonable for a person with a tire iron? If you do I'm glad you're not a police officer.

If that person is charging at me with the tire-iron raised, I'm shooting until he's down. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. If it takes 1 shot, then 1 shot is reasonable. If he's not down until after 10 shots, then 10 shots is reasonable. If he doesn't go down at all, then emptying the magazine is reasonable.

You continue to fire until the threat is neutralized. Sometimes you get lucky and that only takes 2-3 shots. Sometimes you don't and the person doesn't go down even with 15 rounds in them. The simple fact is that unless you hit the central nervous system, it will take a lot more than 2-3 shots to down a determined attacker.

ZV

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: mugs
It is relevant in that the guy had to be close to the officers to effectively use it as a deadly weapon. Standing 10 feet away from the police and raising an AK-47 toward them justifies deadly force. Standing 10 feet away from the police and raising a tire iron does not. Lunging toward the police with the tire iron does. A firearm that is pointed toward the ground can become a firearm that is pointed at the police much more quickly than a tire iron at the guy's waist can become a tire iron on a collision course for a police officer's head. That is relevant.

A person can close a 10 foot distance incredibly fast. Even at 20 feet, raising the tire iron should justifiably cause an officer to fear for his own life.

ZV

 

[PrinceofWands]

It's questionable rather any force is reasonable to coerce compliance. I believe that people have the right to not actively participate in their own arrest, so long as they don't inhibit it through actions. In other words, so long as you lay there like a fish authorities should NEVER be able to use ANY force against you...just put cuffs on you and toss you into a car.

That being said, if you have a weapon out and make a threatening gesture with it...ie someone COULD be injured through your actions with a weapon, then you 100% deserve to be shot and killed by police, or anyone who just happens to be in the area.

Don't want to die, to threaten people's safety. It's not rocket science.

Without direct threat, however, there is NEVER warrant for the use of force. In my opinion.

 

[ric1287]

Originally posted by: QueBert

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: QueBert
10 shots is not acceptable at all, glad a couple of power hungry maniacs got the chance to unload led into another person, maybe they'll chill for awhile. Police Officers are trained at using a fire arm. I am not trained in the use of one, and I know I could stop one person from that distance with far less than 10 shots. Excessive and sad, While I don't agree they should have tried to shoot him in the leg, 10 shots is too many, they could have shot him in the chest, he might have lived and there's no danger for the cops to be injured. Instead they decided it would be better to make sure a small Asian dude with a Tire Iron was dead, because what a threat he must have been.

On the bright side, he could have been a black man and gotten killed just for BOWB (being outside while black)

The bolded part is obvious if you're advocating such idiocy as the idea that it only takes one shot or that they should have aimed for his leg.

ZV

I said clearly DO NOT aim for the leg, if 2 people who are trained in the use of a fire arm cannot stop a person from 10 feet away with less than 10 bullets. they shouldn't be police men. I shoot for fun and I promise I could have done it in 2-3 shots, the dude wasn't far away, he wasn't running around, it would have been EASY for trained professionals defuse the situation with the perp living, instead they made a choice to be psychos and shoot 10 times. do you believe 10 shots is reasonable for a person with a tire iron? If you do I'm glad you're not a police officer.

and to Zenmervolt I never said I've never fired a gun, I said I was never trained how to shoot. I shoot often and I would have to believe, or at least hope the average cop is a better with a pistol than I am. If not maybe I should sign up and become a cop. And in reference to your "if it takes 41 shots to stop the attacker" umm the dude they shot 41 times wasn't even advancing, he was a harmless, unarmed dude who just happened to be black and racist cops wanted an excuse to shoot somebody of color.

haha man you are seriously nuts. If i was actually crazy enough to have the same outlook on the police/gov in general as you do, i would be out of this country in a heartbeat.

anyways, if you get to the point where you are using a firearm, you shoot to kill, not to injure. Simple as that, there is no argument. That is why they have tazers, mace, etc....but as a cop if you decide to use deadly force, you do.

 

[ric1287]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
It's questionable rather any force is reasonable to coerce compliance. I believe that people have the right to not actively participate in their own arrest, so long as they don't inhibit it through actions. In other words, so long as you lay there like a fish authorities should NEVER be able to use ANY force against you...just put cuffs on you and toss you into a car.

That being said, if you have a weapon out and make a threatening gesture with it...ie someone COULD be injured through your actions with a weapon, then you 100% deserve to be shot and killed by police, or anyone who just happens to be in the area.

Don't want to die, to threaten people's safety. It's not rocket science.

Without direct threat, however, there is NEVER warrant for the use of force. In my opinion.

dead weight = resisting. Try "tossing someone into a car" who becomes like a fish.

 

[Baked]

How the fuck do people always get on the receiving end of tasers and bullets? I'd be lucky if I run into a patrol car in a year, even when I go clubbing or whatever.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: mugs
It is relevant in that the guy had to be close to the officers to effectively use it as a deadly weapon. Standing 10 feet away from the police and raising an AK-47 toward them justifies deadly force. Standing 10 feet away from the police and raising a tire iron does not. Lunging toward the police with the tire iron does. A firearm that is pointed toward the ground can become a firearm that is pointed at the police much more quickly than a tire iron at the guy's waist can become a tire iron on a collision course for a police officer's head. That is relevant.

A person can close a 10 foot distance incredibly fast. Even at 20 feet, raising the tire iron should justifiably cause an officer to fear for his own life.

ZV

Do you think that the proper reaction by police when a person raises a tire iron above their head at 10 feet away (or 20 feet away) is to shoot that person?

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: mugs
It is relevant in that the guy had to be close to the officers to effectively use it as a deadly weapon. Standing 10 feet away from the police and raising an AK-47 toward them justifies deadly force. Standing 10 feet away from the police and raising a tire iron does not. Lunging toward the police with the tire iron does. A firearm that is pointed toward the ground can become a firearm that is pointed at the police much more quickly than a tire iron at the guy's waist can become a tire iron on a collision course for a police officer's head. That is relevant.

A person can close a 10 foot distance incredibly fast. Even at 20 feet, raising the tire iron should justifiably cause an officer to fear for his own life.

ZV

Do you think that the proper reaction by police when a person raises a tire iron above their head at 10 feet away (or 20 feet away) is to shoot that person?

If the officer has a rational belief that the individual with the tire iron is about to charge, then yes.

Officer's life > Tire iron-wielding maniac's life

ZV

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: mugs
It is relevant in that the guy had to be close to the officers to effectively use it as a deadly weapon. Standing 10 feet away from the police and raising an AK-47 toward them justifies deadly force. Standing 10 feet away from the police and raising a tire iron does not. Lunging toward the police with the tire iron does. A firearm that is pointed toward the ground can become a firearm that is pointed at the police much more quickly than a tire iron at the guy's waist can become a tire iron on a collision course for a police officer's head. That is relevant.

A person can close a 10 foot distance incredibly fast. Even at 20 feet, raising the tire iron should justifiably cause an officer to fear for his own life.

ZV

Do you think that the proper reaction by police when a person raises a tire iron above their head at 10 feet away (or 20 feet away) is to shoot that person?

If the officer has a rational belief that the individual with the tire iron is about to charge, then yes.

Officer's life > Tire iron-wielding maniac's life

ZV

Shooting the guy is not the only way the officer can protect himself.

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: mugs
Having a weapon (a melee weapon no less) does not justify deadly force.

Threatening to use a lethal weapon isn't justification for deadly force?

Sure it's a not a gun, but it's a lethal weapon just the same.

Oddly enough this was the first hit for "tire iron as deadly weapon".
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/..._app/541471MAJ&invol=4

If he did lunge toward the police with the tire iron raised (like they say he did), then I believe deadly force was justified. If he was walking around with the tire iron lowered (I can't even see a tire iron in the video, I assume it was in his left hand?), I don't believe that justifies deadly force.

Like I said, it's unfortunate that the camera didn't capture what actually happened.

I never said a tire iron isn't a deadly weapon.

Then your statement is about it being a melee weapon is completely irrelevant.

Simply having ANY weapon isn't justification for deadly force. It could be a AK-47, a rocket launcher or a tire iron. Threat+deadly weapon=justified deadly force.

I wonder what the dash cameras show...

It is relevant in that the guy had to be close to the officers to effectively use it as a deadly weapon. Standing 10 feet away from the police and raising an AK-47 toward them justifies deadly force. Standing 10 feet away from the police and raising a tire iron does not. Lunging toward the police with the tire iron does. A firearm that is pointed toward the ground can become a firearm that is pointed at the police much more quickly than a tire iron at the guy's waist can become a tire iron on a collision course for a police officer's head. That is relevant.

But none of that is on the tape... That's the speculation/unknown.

10' is iffy for a hand held weapon, you have to allow for reaction time. Remember, they have to discern if the action is threatening+lethal weapon. Did the guy drop the tire iron as he charged, did he trip with it in his hand, or is he trying to attack? How long does it take to cover 10', a second or two? Charging at someone from 10' with any weapon is pretty much asking for it.

 

[TecHNooB]

*gasp* A korean acknowledging that other koreans are hot tempered and arrogant? :Q

 

[Baked]

Asian dude means he's a master MMA fighter that can kill you in 5 sec bare handed.